Not to ruffle any feathers but bee sure your 150-600 is "ok"

[victorian squid]

600mm for £900 is outstanding in todays market. I am contemplating replacing my Sigma 120-400 OS with one of the 150-600 variants. I like Sigmas solid build quality & have a number of their lenses. However, the Tamron is half the weight of the Sigy, so I am leaning towards the Tamron.

I have just seen your zoo pics, Adam & am impressed, well done.

--
lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
"I'm so fast, when I turn off the light, i'm in bed before the room gets dark" The great Muhammad Ali.

Hi Lee,

the Sigma Contemporary is about the same weight as the Tamron, a few grams more. The Sport is the beast, and I'm not seeing $1k advantage in that lens. I really thought there was going to be a huge advantage in the OS and AF performance, if not some improvement in the sharpness. I'm not seeing any of that. I think for that price, I would not hesitate to get the Canon 100-400 and a 1.4x. This combo is still sharper than any of the 150-600 lenses. And a huge advantage to having a smaller, lighter lens when you need it.

The advantage of the Sigma of course is their outstanding build quality (which I think is better than the Tamron). The USB dock cannot be overlooked though, problem being it's an extra expense. But to be able to fine-tune the lens in ways you cannot with the in-body micro adjusting is pretty important if you shoot certain ways. Also, the ability to be able to update the firmware is a pretty big deal.

That said, I've not seen any difference that would make me want to go one way or the other, or get rid of my Tamron. I'd say if you like the way one handles over the other, get that one. I'm quite happy with the AF performance of the Tamron, and I thought that would be a weak point. Nice build and decently sharp for the most part.

I can say that I have a heck of a time keeping the lens steady hand-held, and need to have shutter speeds 1/1000+ to guarantee no lens blur. The VC helps, but not much by the time you're at 500+. You've already had practice with your 120-400, so you're ahead of the game there.

 

[victorian squid]

You're right. For a $1000, it's great value. I'm less certain of the value in the Sigma S, which appears not to sufficiently distinguish itself in IQ to warrant the premium it commands.

It does distinguish itself with build quality though - and for that it can be worth the price.

Having used both, I would't sweat it too much. If you're not going to be using tripod, then the Sigma S is heavy. If you're heading to wet dusty places, then you might want better build quality and sealing than the Tamron. If you're a pro with someone else paying the bill and with an assistant to carry your lunch box as well - then probably neither.

I don't trust any reviews on these lenses for image quality. A bench test in a lab isn't going to show how it'll perform in real life, >400mm is extreme, there's bound to be "sample variation" at play, and so far tests have reached opposing conclusions. The same will probably apply for the Sigma C.

I've always said, if you plan to be shooting charts with a lens, then some of these specs are very important. Otherwise, a lot of otherwise excellent lenses don't particularly shine shooting 2D targets.

I think if I was going to be using the lens in a "professional" capacity, meaning not fair weather shooting, the Sport makes the most sense. A lot of people have no problem buying L lenses when the biggest advantage that they hold is in their build. In that regard, the extra cost is just part of doing business.

I do have to say though that I'm most disappointed in the specs of the Sport. I really thought it would distinguish itself with its AF and OS performance. I would wager that we'll see a price drop in the Sport, while the Contemporary will stay pretty much where it is.

However, I'm saying this while the jury is still out in some respect. We've had well over a year now to pick apart the Tamron. I didn't buy my copy until the second revision was out in October. So honestly, we've forgotten that things weren't all that rosy with the Tamron when it was first released. Another reason I bring up the huge advantage of being able to update firmware with the Sigma lenses.

 

[buybuybuy]

You're right. For a $1000, it's great value. I'm less certain of the value in the Sigma S, which appears not to sufficiently distinguish itself in IQ to warrant the premium it commands.

It does distinguish itself with build quality though - and for that it can be worth the price.

Having used both, I would't sweat it too much. If you're not going to be using tripod, then the Sigma S is heavy. If you're heading to wet dusty places, then you might want better build quality and sealing than the Tamron. If you're a pro with someone else paying the bill and with an assistant to carry your lunch box as well - then probably neither.

I don't trust any reviews on these lenses for image quality. A bench test in a lab isn't going to show how it'll perform in real life, >400mm is extreme, there's bound to be "sample variation" at play, and so far tests have reached opposing conclusions. The same will probably apply for the Sigma C.

Weathersealing is a plus, no doubt, but unless one's at the zoo or on safari, you have to walk up to the wildlife; it doesn't come up to you. I find my DSLR+24-70 heavy enough, so I do appreciate that the Tamron, which is light to begin with, can be made even lighter with the removal of the tripod collar. Another point in its favor is that it hits its slower apertures a bit later than does the Sigma. Why this is the case, nobody can fathom--especially given the larger front element/optics in the Sigma S!

http://dustinabbott.net/2015/05/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sport-review/

Nice set of figures - but do they actually mean anything?

If they're based on the "self-reported" aperture and focal length of the lens, they're probably meaningless, as neither will be perfectly accurate.

I imagine the data is derived from EXIF. It doesn't have to be "perfectly accurate" to be meaningful and does suggest that the Tamron attains slower apertures at longer focal lengths than the Sigma. Perhaps you have reason to believe otherwise--apart from intuition?

I don't suggest removing the tripod collar on the Tamron - it makes a convenient carry handle when inverted. If you don't have that carry handle, then there's too much temptation to manhandle the camera/lens combination by the camera body, which is a very bad idea in any case, but particularly so if the lens is mounted to a plastic-bodied consumer DSLR.

Understand your point, but I routinely manage my 70-200 just this way. Weight differential between lenses is insignificant (~100 grams).

 

[FrankG]

You're right. For a $1000, it's great value. I'm less certain of the value in the Sigma S, which appears not to sufficiently distinguish itself in IQ to warrant the premium it commands.

It does distinguish itself with build quality though - and for that it can be worth the price.

Having used both, I would't sweat it too much. If you're not going to be using tripod, then the Sigma S is heavy. If you're heading to wet dusty places, then you might want better build quality and sealing than the Tamron. If you're a pro with someone else paying the bill and with an assistant to carry your lunch box as well - then probably neither.

I don't trust any reviews on these lenses for image quality. A bench test in a lab isn't going to show how it'll perform in real life, >400mm is extreme, there's bound to be "sample variation" at play, and so far tests have reached opposing conclusions. The same will probably apply for the Sigma C.

I've always said, if you plan to be shooting charts with a lens, then some of these specs are very important. Otherwise, a lot of otherwise excellent lenses don't particularly shine shooting 2D targets.

I think if I was going to be using the lens in a "professional" capacity, meaning not fair weather shooting, the Sport makes the most sense. A lot of people have no problem buying L lenses when the biggest advantage that they hold is in their build. In that regard, the extra cost is just part of doing business.

The sealing against dust and wet weather is a big advantage for the Sport version.

I do have to say though that I'm most disappointed in the specs of the Sport. I really thought it would distinguish itself with its AF and OS performance. I would wager that we'll see a price drop in the Sport, while the Contemporary will stay pretty much where it is.

Where have you seen any "specs" on the AF and OS "performance"? Have you tried the Sport lens for yourself?

I find the AF performance to be excellent, especially considering that it is only an F6.3 lens at 600mm. I also find the OS performance to be absolutely outstanding. I can consistently get extremely sharp results hand-held with shutter speeds of 1/320th or faster and I still get a very high "hit-rate" of good sharp results at lower shutter speeds down to around 1/200th. Between about 1/125th and 1/200th I still get very sharp results with perhaps about a 50% success rate. Down to 1/80th I am starting to need to lean against a support to steady the lens and anything below that and I really need a tripod although I might get a good result hand-held (with a large failure rate). Considering that I am often shooting with my D7100 used in 1.3 crop mode and with the lens at 600mm (and am still often wanting more "reach" for birds) that is equivalent to using a 1950mm field-of-view equivalent lens hand-held at quite ridiculously low shutter speeds.

However, I'm saying this while the jury is still out in some respect. We've had well over a year now to pick apart the Tamron. I didn't buy my copy until the second revision was out in October. So honestly, we've forgotten that things weren't all that rosy with the Tamron when it was first released. Another reason I bring up the huge advantage of being able to update firmware with the Sigma lenses.

Also the ability to fine-focus tune the Sigma lenses for each separate focal length at 4 different disatances. Also the ability to set custom modes for different usage scenarios.

 

[Adam2]

Do you have any data to support the assertion that the 100-400 mkii with a 1.4x is sharper than these lenses? At 2 1/2x price plus the cost of a converter it had better be.

 

[freddyNZ]

You're right. For a $1000, it's great value. I'm less certain of the value in the Sigma S, which appears not to sufficiently distinguish itself in IQ to warrant the premium it commands.

It does distinguish itself with build quality though - and for that it can be worth the price.

Having used both, I would't sweat it too much. If you're not going to be using tripod, then the Sigma S is heavy. If you're heading to wet dusty places, then you might want better build quality and sealing than the Tamron. If you're a pro with someone else paying the bill and with an assistant to carry your lunch box as well - then probably neither.

I don't trust any reviews on these lenses for image quality. A bench test in a lab isn't going to show how it'll perform in real life, >400mm is extreme, there's bound to be "sample variation" at play, and so far tests have reached opposing conclusions. The same will probably apply for the Sigma C.

Weathersealing is a plus, no doubt, but unless one's at the zoo or on safari, you have to walk up to the wildlife; it doesn't come up to you. I find my DSLR+24-70 heavy enough, so I do appreciate that the Tamron, which is light to begin with, can be made even lighter with the removal of the tripod collar. Another point in its favor is that it hits its slower apertures a bit later than does the Sigma. Why this is the case, nobody can fathom--especially given the larger front element/optics in the Sigma S!

http://dustinabbott.net/2015/05/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sport-review/

Nice set of figures - but do they actually mean anything?

If they're based on the "self-reported" aperture and focal length of the lens, they're probably meaningless, as neither will be perfectly accurate.

I imagine the data is derived from EXIF. It doesn't have to be "perfectly accurate" to be meaningful and does suggest that the Tamron attains slower apertures at longer focal lengths than the Sigma. Perhaps you have reason to believe otherwise--apart from intuition?

The exif data will most likely be wrong, it's only reporting the position of the zoom ring. Most lenses even of fixed focal length aren't exactly the stated focal length. I doubt that the zoom ring position data in the exif or the markings on the ring are more than rough approximations of real focal length for intermediate settings.
Furthermore so-called "variable aperture" zooms like these don't actually vary the aperture during zooming. The F-stop varies varies with focal length, but the diaphragm stays the same. If the lenses are actually f 4.5 at 150mm, and 6.3 at 600mm, then as "variable f-stop" zooms, they should have identical f-number at the same intermediate "real" focal lengths.

I don't suggest removing the tripod collar on the Tamron - it makes a convenient carry handle when inverted. If you don't have that carry handle, then there's too much temptation to manhandle the camera/lens combination by the camera body, which is a very bad idea in any case, but particularly so if the lens is mounted to a plastic-bodied consumer DSLR.

Understand your point, but I routinely manage my 70-200 just this way. Weight differential between lenses is insignificant (~100 grams).

The 150-600 Tamron is 1/2 kg heavier than a 70-200 f2.8 as well as longer - even when not extended. It will exert a lot more leverage force on the mount. Even with a 70-200, I'd be very careful if ever handling the combination by the body. Take a look at the small screws holding the lens mount ring on to the body. They are not designed to withstand a lot of leverage.

 

[buybuybuy]

You're right. For a $1000, it's great value. I'm less certain of the value in the Sigma S, which appears not to sufficiently distinguish itself in IQ to warrant the premium it commands.

It does distinguish itself with build quality though - and for that it can be worth the price.

Having used both, I would't sweat it too much. If you're not going to be using tripod, then the Sigma S is heavy. If you're heading to wet dusty places, then you might want better build quality and sealing than the Tamron. If you're a pro with someone else paying the bill and with an assistant to carry your lunch box as well - then probably neither.

I don't trust any reviews on these lenses for image quality. A bench test in a lab isn't going to show how it'll perform in real life, >400mm is extreme, there's bound to be "sample variation" at play, and so far tests have reached opposing conclusions. The same will probably apply for the Sigma C.

Weathersealing is a plus, no doubt, but unless one's at the zoo or on safari, you have to walk up to the wildlife; it doesn't come up to you. I find my DSLR+24-70 heavy enough, so I do appreciate that the Tamron, which is light to begin with, can be made even lighter with the removal of the tripod collar. Another point in its favor is that it hits its slower apertures a bit later than does the Sigma. Why this is the case, nobody can fathom--especially given the larger front element/optics in the Sigma S!

http://dustinabbott.net/2015/05/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sport-review/

Nice set of figures - but do they actually mean anything?

If they're based on the "self-reported" aperture and focal length of the lens, they're probably meaningless, as neither will be perfectly accurate.

I imagine the data is derived from EXIF. It doesn't have to be "perfectly accurate" to be meaningful and does suggest that the Tamron attains slower apertures at longer focal lengths than the Sigma. Perhaps you have reason to believe otherwise--apart from intuition?

The exif data will most likely be wrong, it's only reporting the position of the zoom ring. Most lenses even of fixed focal length aren't exactly the stated focal length. I doubt that the zoom ring position data in the exif or the markings on the ring are more than rough approximations of real focal length for intermediate settings.
Furthermore so-called "variable aperture" zooms like these don't actually vary the aperture during zooming. The F-stop varies varies with focal length, but the diaphragm stays the same. If the lenses are actually f 4.5 at 150mm, and 6.3 at 600mm, then as "variable f-stop" zooms, they should have identical f-number at the same intermediate "real" focal lengths.

Interesting! I don't know the nuances of this stuff. I'm guessing the diaphragm stays the same size and then elements behind and in front of it move around when zooming?

It would help to have a measured T-stop as a function of focal length. DXO hasn't reviewed the Sigma S yet, though!

I don't suggest removing the tripod collar on the Tamron - it makes a convenient carry handle when inverted. If you don't have that carry handle, then there's too much temptation to manhandle the camera/lens combination by the camera body, which is a very bad idea in any case, but particularly so if the lens is mounted to a plastic-bodied consumer DSLR.

Understand your point, but I routinely manage my 70-200 just this way. Weight differential between lenses is insignificant (~100 grams).

The 150-600 Tamron is 1/2 kg heavier than a 70-200 f2.8 as well as longer - even when not extended. It will exert a lot more leverage force on the mount. Even with a 70-200, I'd be very careful if ever handling the combination by the body. Take a look at the small screws holding the lens mount ring on to the body. They are not designed to withstand a lot of leverage.

Tamron 150-600: (1,686.65g), lens only without collar, actual measured.

Nikon 70-200: Lens with tripod foot: 54.055 oz. (1,532.4g), measured.

To be fair, I often handhold my 70-200 without tripod food (total weight 1452 g).

In any case, weight differential is no more than 200g.

In no case do I hold it with the body alone because as you point out, the torque can warp the mount!

 

[clark321]

Do you have any data to support the assertion that the 100-400 mkii with a 1.4x is sharper than these lenses? At 2 1/2x price plus the cost of a converter it had better be.

Using "The digital Pictue" the 100-400 + 1.4 looks good across the frame but to my eyes all 3 150-600s are sharper in the centre.

 

[FrankG]

.....
I find the AF performance to be excellent, especially considering that it is only an F6.3 lens at 600mm. I also find the OS performance to be absolutely outstanding. I can consistently get extremely sharp results hand-held with shutter speeds of 1/320th or faster and I still get a very high "hit-rate" of good sharp results at lower shutter speeds down to around 1/200th. Between about 1/125th and 1/200th I still get very sharp results with perhaps about a 50% success rate. Down to 1/80th I am starting to need to lean against a support to steady the lens and anything below that and I really need a tripod although I might get a good result hand-held (with a large failure rate). Considering that I am often shooting with my D7100 used in 1.3 crop mode and with the lens at 600mm (and am still often wanting more "reach" for birds) that is equivalent to using a 1950mm field-of-view equivalent lens hand-held at quite ridiculously low shutter speeds.

Ummm - slight correction to what I wrote (very late last night!) - that last sentence of course should have read "... equivalent to using an 1170mm field-of-view equivalent ..." etc.

 

[Adam2]

So, the real answer is no? Any data on AF, color, contrast, etc.?

 

[Casper Oudejans]

I' m very happy with my Tamron on my D800. Handles nicly and very sharp.

 

[AlphaMax]

Another very happy Tamron user here! If there is one thing I learned very early on it is this: you can go crazy staring at numbers, but the real test is put the thing on your camera and go take some real-world photos and see if you like the results!